The Electoral College gives disproportionate voting power to the
states, favoring the smaller states with more electoral votes per
person.

For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times
as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This
is because Wyoming has 3 electoral votes for a population of 493,782
and Texas has 32 electoral votes for a population of over 20 million
people. By dividing the population by electoral votes, we can see that
Wyoming has an "elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an
"elector" for every 652,000 people.

The small states were given additional power to prevent politicians
from only focusing on issues which affect the larger states. The fear
was that without this power, politicians would completely ignore small
states and only focus on big population centers.

Ironically, there is a study that concludes that larger states are
actually at an advantage in the Electoral College. Because almost all
states give all their electors to whichever candidate wins the most
votes within that state, candidates must win whole states in order to
win the presidency. Naturally, candidates tend to concentrate resources
on the largest payoffs, the states which can provide the
greatest number of electoral votes.

For a history of the development of the Electoral College, see William
C. Kimberling's essay, A Brief History of the Electoral College .
Kimberling is the Deputy Director of the FEC's Office of Election
Administration. This document provides a historical interpretation of
the Electoral College.

The Electoral College favors the smaller states with disproportionate
voting power. Advocates of the system say that this uneven power forces
politicians to pay attention to smaller states, which would otherwise
be ignored.

Despite its intentions, the Electoral College does not encourage politicians to campaign in every state.

Some states are still excluded from the campaign; these are not
necessarily the small states, but rather they are the states that are
not viewed as competitive.

Since
all but two states allocate their votes via a winner-take-all
method, there is no reason for a candidate to campaign in a state that
clearly favors one candidate. As an example, Democratic
candidates have little incentive to spend time in solidly Republican
states, like Texas, even if many Democrats live there. Conversely,
Republican candidates have little incentive to campaign in solidly
Democratic states, like Massachusetts, especially when they know that
states like Florida and Michigan are toss-ups.

The winner-take-all rule also leads to lower voter turnout in states
where one party is dominant, because each individual vote will be
overwhelmed by the majority and will not, in effect, "count" if the
winner takes all the electoral votes.

In 21 states, electors are not obligated by law to vote for the candidate for whom they were selected.

In the 29 states where electors are obligated by law or pledge, they
can often still vote against their party without being replaced. Some
states issue only minimal fines as punishment. Other states instigate
criminal charges varying from a simple misdemeanor to a 4th degree
felony.

This inconsistency allows for discrepancies in our electoral system.
The electors from nearly half the states can vote however they wish,
regardless of the popular will of the state.

In the founding of our nation, the Electoral College was established to
prevent the people from making "uneducated" decisions. The founders
feared uneducated public opinion and designed the Electoral College as
a layer of insulation from the direct voice of the masses.

There is no reason, in this modern day, to assign this responsibility
to a set of individual electors. Thousands of votes can and have been
violated by an individual elector, choosing to act on his or her own
behalf instead of on the behalf of the people.

Since the founding of the Electoral College, 157 electors have not cast
their votes for the candidates they were designated to represent.

If
no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes, the
presidential vote is deferred to the House of Representatives and the
vice presidential vote is deferred to the Senate. This could easily
lead to a purely partisan battle, instead of an attempt to discover
which candidate the citizens really prefer.

If the Senate and the House of Representative reflect different
majorities, meaning that they select members of opposing parties, the
offices of president and vice president could be greatly damaged. This
potential opposition in the presidential office would not be good for
the stability of the country or the government.

Because of our two-party system, voters often find themselves voting
for the "lesser of two evils," rather than a candidate they really feel
would do the best job. The Electoral College inadvertently
reinforces this two party system, where third parties cannot enter the
race without being tagged as “spoilers.”

Since most states distribute their electoral votes on a winner-take-all
basis, a smaller party has no chance to gain support without seeming to
take this support from one of the major parties. Few people will
support a party that never wins, especially when they are supporting
that party at the possible expense of their least favorite candidate
taking power (as happened to Nader/Gore supporters in 2000 and
Perot/Bush supporters in 1992).

As the 2000 election demonstrated, it is possible for a President to be
elected without winning the popular vote. Nor was the Bush/Gore
election the first time a presidential candidate has won the presidency
while someone else claimed a plurality of the votes cast. Andrew
Jackson and Samuel Tilden won the popular vote in 1824 and 1876
respectively, only to see someone else walk into the White House.

An even more common occurrence is for a presidential candidate to win
both the presidency and the popular vote without actually winning a
majority of all ballots cast. This has happened 16 times since the
founding of the Electoral College, most recently in 2000. In every one
of these elections, more than half of the voters voted against the
candidate who was elected.

With such a winner-take-all system, it is impossible to tell which
candidate the people really prefer, especially in a close race.